Four Questions for the BiP crowd who maintain Benedict knew what he was doing, did it on purpose, and remains the only true pope with his own full knowledge and consent

The “full knowledge and consent” part will become important, gravely important, in a moment. First, a few words of introduction.

In this post, we address those commentators who believe with moral certitude that Benedict is still the one true pope, but profess against the Substantial Error theory of Benedict’s invalid resignation. These include Estefania Acosta, Patrick Coffin, and Andrea Cionci. While they all 100% see Benedict’s resignation as invalid, or they might say not even attempted, and hence, Bergoglio was never pope, their theory is that the invalidating act was executed by Pope Benedict on purpose, in order to protect the Church and the papacy from the ascendant anti-church. With forces rapidly closing in, Benedict, in a masterstroke of Teutonic brilliance, pulled off the switcheroo right under everyone’s noses, using code words, subtle phrasing, and delaying its effect for 17 days but then letting that 17th day pass without ever signing anything. He modeled all this on a strategy built centuries ago by European monarchs to protect their thrones via feigned regency. Benedict knew what he was doing, it has nothing to do with an imagined Expanded Petrine Ministry. He intended to retain the full papacy, to declare the Seat “impeded,” and this is in fact (and in law) what he did. If my summary of their position is inadequate, I am open to correction.

I have attempted private communications on this and have found the responses lacking. There have since been several essays made public, so I’m not breaching any confidences. Most recently, Coffin published the English translation of Cionci’s open letter to Ann Barnhardt and Dr. Mazza. I greatly respect everyone in this fight who come to it with integrity. I will fully admit to being wrong if my questions can be answered in an orthodox way, but also in a way that fits with the evidence at hand. What we cannot accept is circular reasoning or “begging the question…” We cannot allow answers like “your assertion is obviously incorrect because my base premise is the true one.” I am not here to attack anyone, I am here to attack arguments. Actually, I’m not really even offering counter-arguments, because we are in mutual agreement on so much of the evidence at hand. I’m simply pointing out the logical consequences, if their arguments and conclusions are correct. So let us begin.

Question One: If Pope Benedict executed his non-resignation (grave matter) with full knowledge and full intent, how is it that he is not in a state of mortal sin for doing so? The three conditions have been met (grave matter, full knowledge, full assent of the will). A valid pontiff, crowned by Christ himself, executes one of the greatest deceptions in the history of the Church, and he is a brilliant strategist for doing so? How can that be? While God can and does allow good to come out of evil, God never condones the doing of evil in the hope of a good outcome. God doesn’t do “the ends justify the means,” ever. And while Pope Benedict could have theoretically gone to Confession the evening of 28 Feb 2013, he could not have received valid absolution, because valid absolution requires a firm purpose of amendment, and in cases where the effect of certain sins can be rectified, then rectification is a necessary component of the penance. In which case he persists in mortal sin, NINE YEARS later. Which brings us to…

Question Two: If Pope Benedict executed his intentional grave deception in order to save the Church from the wolves, what then of the Faithful? Not a word from Benedict about the apostasy of his “successor” who all the world thinks is pope? This is the most grave mortal sin of SCANDAL. Benedict has willfully (according to their theory) lead a billion souls to believe a heretical, blaspheming, demon-worshiping apostate is the true pope of the One True Church. How many people have been led astray, accepted heresy and easy sin, and gone to their eternal reward in such condition? I will tell you how many: 70 MILLION. That’s how many Catholics have died in the last nine years, two months. Pope Benedict is (according to their theory) intentionally sitting by, petting his cat, knowing he is still the only true pope, knowing that Bergoglio is an antipope, perfectly happy to have 70 million souls going to their Particular Judgment thinking Bergoglio was pope and his magisterium authentic. If so, this is an awful test of God’s bounteous mercy, and it makes Benedict a monster.

Aside: I will admit, and this is damning with faint praise, but we do know Benedict Ratzinger is capable of deception. Why? Because it was Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the CDF who authorized the fake news text of the 13 May 2000 announcement by Cardinal Sodano of the true Third Secret of Fatima. A total deception, and one that curiously has direct implications into what we are discussing here. Funny that. There was also that time he claimed he was forced to continue wearing papal white because no other colors were available.

Question Three: What was it, exactly, that Benedict did actually resign (or intend to resign) when he read out the Declaratio? It is clear from the text that he intended to resign something, leaving aside the question of whether or not it was effective. In the key phrase of the document, he is clearly resigning, or intending to resign SOMETHING. Look at the English, look at the original Latin, or watch the video. “I renounce the ministry” … while we can argue whether or not the words took effect, we cannot claim he did not say those words. Canon Law demands that we respect the meaning of words, the context, and the mind of the legislator:

Can. 17. Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places, if there are such, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.

Question Four: Since Gnosticism is heresy, how are the faithful to approach the “Ratzinger Code” in an orthodox manner? The evidence for the Substantial Error theory is all out in full view for anyone to see, not just for those with eyes to see, if you know what I mean. We all agree on the visual evidence; a five year old could see it. We all know how Benedict’s further writings, and his words in the Seewald interviews, point to something other than what is commonly accepted, but that much is evident from the actual meaning of his words, not code words. Saying that the common lay faithful need access to a secret code to discern who is true pope seems… rather problematic. Implying that knowledge of this secret code is necessary to find and follow the true Church and achieve one’s salvation is… you see what I mean. So how to approach this in an orthodox manner?

Honest questions deserve honest answers.


I confess, I wanted this idea of intentional obfuscation to be true for quite some time, before the Code Theory even existed. I wanted Benedict to be the 15 dimensional chess player, the brilliant Bavarian who outsmarted all the traitors. But the practical consequences on the ground these nine years later are too much to bear. I will also admit, it is highly irregular and it does hold water that the day of 28 Feb 2013 came and went without Ratzinger actually signing anything before or after he got on the helicopter. Italian canonists were calling it out in real time. I see this as a third way he may have retained the papacy whole and entire.

Hold fast, folks. Things are happening.

42 thoughts on “Four Questions for the BiP crowd who maintain Benedict knew what he was doing, did it on purpose, and remains the only true pope with his own full knowledge and consent

  1. Thank you Mark. This makes much more sense to me, as I too wanted Pope Benedict to be playing “15 dimensional chess”. It seemed to me to be the kinder and more charitable position. But in reality it is not….it’s deceptive as you point out. It is GOD who will use BXVI’s substantial error to play 15 dimensional chess.

    Thanks for all you do. Oh and in light of the your reposting of Fr. Nix’s piece on the SSPX AND the sedevacantists NOT being in schism I’m hoping that soon you all will do a round table discussion on the subject as Ann mentioned on the last podcast. The round table I hope will include Vanessa.

    Thanks again and God bless and the Virgin protect you and yours.

    St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.

    Debbie

  2. 1. Perhaps he is not in a mortal sin. Perhaps he speaks uncleary in code because he speaks with a mental reservation, the same way Abraham lied about being Sarah’s husband or Rebecca conspired against Esau, and everyone just accepted it as God’s Will. There is even some evidence that JPII and Benedict knew ahead of time some of what was coming, because of private revelation. He did speak about fleeing from wolves when elected.

    2. I happen to think Benedict is a prisoner in the Vatican, and all press contact is just photo ops. By keeping the wolf from the throne, he kept the world from ending, since God always keeps His Word. I think this is how God will sift through weed and wheat in the Church: the supposed pope is teaching errors and apostasy–can the faithful recognize his lack of authority? Or will they fall away or follow the alleged pope blindly.

    3. Canon Law requires the office to be resigned. He said ministry, which is the active exercise of the office. So he holds the office while the false prophet pretends to be pope until he’s dead.

    4. Mental reservation. Give the canons that tell us what Gnosticism is.

    1. The canon does NOT say he must resign the office/munus. It says IF he resigns the munus, it must be done freely, be properly manifested, etc.

      Be careful with the terms “Legislator,” and “the mind of the Legislator.” The Legislator is not a particular pope. It is a literary construct. The mind of the Legislator is manifested in the law, not in interviews and such.

      1. It says if it should happen he resign the munus, here are validating criteria. I agree he could have validly resigned without using the term “munus”. .. perhaps by resigning as Vicar of Christ or resigning “the papacy”… but instead he chose Ministerium, and that won’t do.

    2. “If Pope Benedict executed his non-resignation (grave matter) with full knowledge and full intent, how is it that he is not in a state of mortal sin for doing so?” Because it is not a mortal sin to “not resign.” I guess I never took it as a “code.” He said he was going to pull back from the active ministry.

      When I was in philosophy class years ago, we were discussing Socrates. I dont know if or where he said it, but the teacher attributed to Socrates the belief that “it is not the responsibility of the just man to seek justice, but that of the unjust man to restore that which he ruined.” This fit the Catholic view. We dont go to confession expecting reparations for our sins to be done by others. If I say that I’m going out for a walk and you tell everyone I left to smoke weed, the responsibility for correction doesnt fall on the person that did nothing wrong. It was not wrong to NOT resign.

      What about after?! Since that point, if you remember, one of his first acts was to try fleeing Rome. But he was quickly returned (as if he was some kind of lost cat or package). I hate to say this but it has been very hard to trust what comes out of Rome. Whether it was Windswept House, the incomplete reveal of the 3rd Secret, the non-signed documents against the SSPX, whatever…. And similarly I have felt we dont get the full, unedited comments by Benedict. What is released is what is allowed to be released…. They arent allowing any LGB style teleprompter / rifting since they were able to spin the speech as resignation…. add to this the prophesies by Anne Emmerich about a pope imprisoned in Rome, the Fatima pope who appeared as if before a mirror (one image true, the other fake), the prophesy of St Francis about the deceiver, etc etc….. just my opinion….

  3. “There was also that time he claimed he was forced to continue wearing papal white because no other colors were available.” – Come on. That’s always been obvious as an attempt (failed) at humor. Minor point but get off it, as jokes aren’t deceptions.

      1. Correct. “I don’t want to answer this question, so have a joke” still isn’t a deception. Just withholding, cautious, maybe feeling tired & hopeless.

      2. *On some level*, Benedict must surely realize that proverbially “he screwed the pooch.” Even if he meant to resign, he was still feeling defeated / admitting defeat. Poor guy!

  4. My compliments on calling out the Gnosticism. Very apt.

    I think of Gnosticism. in general. as the desire & intention to possess secret knowledge, whereby one’s feelings of indifference & hostility toward “asleep” or “dumb” or “immoral” others would then seem to be justified.

    It’s an ever-present temptation. By the nature (Original Sin?) of how the human brain works, we all have nonstop experiences of 1) seeing things that others don’t see; and then 2) wanting to compliment ourselves, get high on ourselves……. as opposed to the painful alternatives of accepting correction, accepting the burden of engaging & teaching others, or accepting the burden of simply “standing apart” in a difference of opinion that can never be resolved.

  5. Gnosticism, condemned as heresy, should be described in the canons of councils, if condemned by an ecumenical council. I’m not asking just to be difficult. I am asking because a few weeks ago I discovered a phantom heresy, by which I mean a teaching that everyone knows is heresy but when you consult primary sources you se no evidence has been condemned.

    To people that dismiss what we plainly see as “conspiracy theories” we must come off as gnostics.

    1. Gnosticism has been universally condemned from the earliest days, beginning already with St. Paul in the last verses of 1st Timothy. Among the greatest works are those from St. Irenaeus and Tertullian.

      1. “For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles. ”

        “Saying that the common lay faithful need access to a secret code to discern who is true pope seems… rather problematic. Implying that knowledge of this secret code is necessary to find and follow the true Church and achieve one’s salvation is… you see what I mean. So how to approach this in an orthodox manner?”

        First and foremost, recognizing that The Catholic Church Is The One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church Of Christ, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque) and the fact that it is not possible for a counterfeit church to subsist within The One Body Of Christ, outside of which there is no Salvation due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque) can be known through both Our Catholic Faith and reason, and is thus not a form of Gnosticism, but a Gift Of The Holy Ghost.

        https://onepeterfive.com/filioque-separated-east/

      1. Gnosticism has nothing to do with Ratzinger Code. It is more like discernment. How did this articulate man suddenly become so inarticulate? Why does almost everything he says seems to contradict itself, especially when talking about the pope? It honesty looks like either his mind detoriated or he is speaking with mental reservation.

        Someone could argue that it is Gnosticism to conclude that Francis is an antipope, but it is possible to discern it.

  6. I’m grateful for everyone trying to talk things out in a sensible manner. I thought he had just confused himself with complexity since June 2014. I’m praying for everyone. Asking God to bring this awful situation to an end soon!

  7. Question 1:
    This writer has a problem with your initial presumption of sin.
    Catholic Moral Teaching can shed some light on this point.
    Each human act can be broken down into three parts…the object, the intention and the circumstances.
    “The goodness of a moral act is determined by these three elements and for an act to be considered morally good, all three of these elements must be good. A defect in any of these three elements causes the act to be deemed morally evil.”
    The Object: What I do? – Pope Benedict publicly presents a “Declaratio” but never resigns his ‘muneri’ while appearing to concede to their coercive demands. In a shrewd manner, giving the enemy the impression of surrender but at the same time using that opportunity as the very means against the enemy in a kind of Jujutsu flip.
    The Intention: Why? What is the intended outcome? – Pope Benedict sought to protect the Faith and the faithful of the Catholic Church from known enemies, an Antipope and his subsequent false church of darkness (the Antichurch or Counter-church) by rendering everything subsequently null and void.
    The Circumstances: What is the situation? What were the actual circumstances – Pope Benedict already knew what was going to happen in the future from Our Lady’s Third Secret of Fatima. He lacked the support of nearly all of the hierarchy. He was surrounded on all sides by the devil’s people, who held all of the choke points of power in the visible institution of the Catholic Church. He was and is a prisoner in his own house, under masonic occupation. In his mind, the options were extremely limited as he stated 8 years earlier, “My authority ends at that door.” Within this hostile environment, Pope Benedict did what he could with his God-given intellect and a very skillful use of the Code of Canon Law. There were no alternatives in that set of circumstances. There were no less harmful options to consider. The possible and probable consequences of his action were unavoidable. Likewise, were the effects on everyone in the world.

    Bearing all that in mind, does the act of Pope Benedict XVI have a good object, intention and circumstance?
    Yes, of course it does.
    —————————
    Question 2 does not apply in this case.
    Presenting by reading a very carefully worded document which clearly and precisely means what it says. Then witnessing others arrive at their own wrong conclusion (their own desired outcome) is NOT a deception. It was ONLY THEIR IMPRESSION but not in fact and reality.
    —————————
    Aside:
    “Most Catholics don’t realize that Pope Paul VI placed the Secretary of State OVER the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. [Cardinal Ratzinger was directly answerable to Cardinal Sodano]
    Antonio Socci explains: “On June 26th, Cardinal Ratzinger was not able to make a free theological
    comment on the text but incessantly declared that the interpretation was by the Secretary of State, he was only giving points of reflection within the confines of a predetermined interpretative framework, stating explicitly the limits of his commentary. Cardinal Ratzinger: ‘In what follows therefore we can only attempt to provide a deeper foundation for this interpretation, the interpretation of Cardinal Sodano.’”
    In other words, even before it had been released Cardinal Sodano had already announced his interpretation of the third secret and then he had Cardinal Ratzinger comment on that interpretation. Cardinal Ratzinger did so, but he made it clear that all he was doing was commenting further on the interpretation proposed by his superior.
    Socci continues: “Noting that not only did Cardinal Ratzinger downplay the significance of this interpretation, he also stressed that, concerning the Fatima visions, there are no official definitions, nor obligatory interpretations,” and I’m quoting “‘and that there are other attempts interpretation which can be well founded.’ The Cardinal also stressed the response to an inquiry from a Bishop that he had not at all wish ‘to attribute exclusively to the past the contents of the secret in a simplistic manner.’”
    So in other words, even as he was commenting on Cardinal Sodano’s explanation that the vision pertained to the assassination attempt on St. John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger made the specific points that concerning the Fatima visions there are no official definitions, nor obligatory interpretations and there are other attempts at interpretation which can be well-founded. So although the Holy See did give one possible explanation of this vision, that explanation is not officially obligatory and we’re perfectly free to seek other well-founded possibilities, and that’s exactly what we’ll do.” – Fr. Philip Wolfe, FSSP
    —————————
    Question 3:
    One can “declare” anything but what canonical import does any such declaration actually hold?
    —————————
    Question 4:
    Gnosticism has nothing to do with Pope Benedict’s words and actions.
    https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm
    Employing coded language to communicate is a very Vatican way of doing things.
    Can we find in Sacred Scripture Our Blessed Lord not doing similar things when He walked the earth?
    Tell me, what was the purpose of the Parables? See Matthew 13:10-17
    In a similar way, why the need for the Messianic Secret?

  8. Let me play Devil’s Advocate for a moment:

    Isn’t Benedict XVI’s saying, “the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant…” enough?

    * * *

    My own little thoughts here…
    Because if he really did resign, and we got pachamama-worshiping Bergoglio as a true pope (God please forgive me for saying that), then I would have a serious crisis of faith.

    If that’s were the case, I would seriously consider going to the Orthodox Church, but I would always be left with a nagging question in the back of my mind: “If the Patriarch of the West, the Pope, isn’t actually protected from such errors, what hope would I have with the Patriarch of Moscow, or Constantinople?”

    1. Said another way, any Catholic who thinks Bergoglio is true pope and who is NOT having a crisis of faith, doesn’t believe the Catholic Church is who She says She is.

      1. All the people I know (e.g., my bishop) who insist that Bergoglio is pope insist that he did not say what he plainly DID say in Amoris Laetitia, that Pachamama is an Amazonian icon of the Blessed Virgin, that Traditionis Custodes mumble mumble mumble, that the five dubia mumble mumble mumble.

      2. This is the most likely scenario. He said the sees are vacant, there is no “resignation form” in canon law that he “didn’t sign.” Similarly you could verbally announce to your boss that you quit and not show up the next day. Your boss could not claim that you really didn’t resign… For myself I am in an extreme crisis of faith over the one who identifies as Francis. The most likely scenario to me is that he is an undeclared anti-pope and the sees are indeed vacant.

      3. Tony Cusack,

        I responded to your comment, but neglected to see it was disconnected from your comment. If you are interested … it is at the bottom of the thread.

        God bless!
        Aqua

  9. Mark,

    I summarized your four questions in one place – for myself, just to get a handle on the essential point you are making.

    1: How is that Pope Benedict XVI is not in a state of mortal sin?
    2: If Pope Benedict executed his intentional grave deception in order to save the Church from the wolves, what then of the Faithful?
    3: What was it, exactly, that Benedict did actually resign (or intend to resign) when he read out the Declaratio?
    4: Since Gnosticism is heresy, how are the faithful to approach the “Ratzinger Code” in an orthodox manner?

    I think the first place to start is from the perspective that Pope Benedict XVI is the Vicar of Christ. What does that mean, practically speaking? I know you, as with so many others, believe strongly in the Divine Papal Protections, codified in Vatican I. We have had many discussions, here on your blog, about Bergoglio’s schismatic acts and departures from the Faith – *but he’s not Pope*. The Munus of Pope is supposed to mean something. Vicar of Christ is not just a fancy title to place on your big fancy office desk. It means a direct connection between God and Man in the person of Pope. *What Pope Benedict XVI did, he did as Vicar of Christ, true Pope with all protections the Church guarantees go with that*.

    Second, what are the implications, practically speaking? The Pope didn’t tell us. You speculate many things here. I speculate all the time. But I only *KNOW* certain things for sure: there is but one Pope, not two; The resignation of the living Pope was not in accord with clear, concise, simple Canon Law; The aftermath demonstrates and proves invalidity. That I can know. That is not Gnostic – even an illiterate can see there are two Popes when Christ gave us but one. What *can I not know*? Why did he do it? Is he in a state of mortal sin? Did God, or Our Lady, communicate this path to him, deep within his private prayer chambers? I don’t know. *That* cannot possibly be known. Your questions cannot possibly be answered. All we can say for sure is (1) he was Pope when he did it; (2) he remains Pope now; (3) the Church has been shaken to its roots.

    And so, third, Our Lady’s warning to the Church in 2017 urged us to “Penance, Penance, Penance … the time is short … My Son’s wrath is strong and I cannot restrain it much longer … repent, befor many, many souls are lost to the fires of hell” (paraphrase from my memory). Have we? No. We have gorged ourselves on sin, within the Church. What does Divine punishment look like? Perhaps just like this. Every Catholic has everything they need to choose Truth. I know there can be but one Pope. I know Pachamama Baal on St. Peter’s High Altar and Vatican Garden enthronement is sacrelgious idolatry most abominable. I know Dogma cannot be changed. I know degredations and abominations in Holy Mass are insults to Our Suffering Lord, on the Cross. I know sin cannot be declared not-sin by even the Pope.

    I think God has given up the Church to its own lusts and depravity in a cleansing spiritual fire – exactly as foretold by Our Lady at Fatima.

    And I think (speculate, do not know) that Pope Benedict is hidden within the Papacy just as the Holy Mother Church … *the True Church* … is hidden within the apostate Novus Ordo NewChurch of the Freemasonic NWO. Hidden. Why? Because this is the chastisement. God has hidden His face from us, and He has hidden His Vicar from us as well. We don’t have a Holy Father during the chastisement because … we are being chastised; punished most severely.

    Just as Jesus did not announce Himself to the Jewish nation with visible armies of Angels, nor did he descend from the clouds in glory; rather he appeared hidden in the most humble of circumstances, such that even His closest Apostles didn’t truly know who He was until after the ressurection (“Simon Bar-Jona, who do you say that I am” … implying the answer was not necessarily certain, but for pure faith) …. so too, now, we are tasked with searching for Our Lord, Our Lady, the One True Roman Catholic Church in this time of terrible chastisement as Christ burns the sin and filth from His Holy Bride – searching as for a Pearl of great price with smoke and flames obscuring our view and without the comfort of Papal presence and an Hierarchy of Apostles with him.

    As I understand it, that is Cionci’s thesis. I find the logic compelling.

    Either way, it is what it is, because in the end … we can’t really ever know *why*. All we can do is search for Our Lord with all our heart and find the path, through Mary to the RCC to heaven.

    Benedict is Pope.
    He has his reasons.
    He will be judged for his faithfulness,
    We will be judged for ours.
    We must find the true Church, without a visible Pope.
    I don’t blame Benedict XVI. I trust him. I venerate him. I try to understand him. But mostly, I seek Jesus.

  10. All of your questions have been answered many times in so many years ever since the communist-Freemason John XXIII stole the seat of St. Peter. And then they stole again and gave it to the filthy pig a faggot-JewishCabal-Synagogue of Satan Paul VI—the Antipope and AntiChrist. They killed the Catholic Church by killing the true Mass and changing the sacraments. He infused the church with communists, sodomites, pedophiles, and Cabals/Luciferians of the New Jews World Disorder (NWO). They bombarded the churches, seminaries, convents, monasteries, universities, schools… with filthy beasts.

    But, when a true Catholic Pope was elected John Paul I, and he was hurried up to clean them out, they killed him in 33 days just as their symbol of Satanic Ritual of sacrifice to their father Satan required them to do.

    Then, they got in another JewishCabal double agent John Paul II… Benedict (Ratzinger) was right there, right then, and fully 100% with them from the beginning. I do not even believe that those guys were ordained validly and truly popes and/or cardinals, bishops, and priests of the true Holy Catholic Church. I strongly believe all of them are TROJAN HORSES, the greatest enemy against God and all humanity. The Jews and Israel are the curses and be cursed forever until after 3 Days of Darkness if Our Lady accepts some of them to be Her Children. I am 100% obligated to pray for everybody and special the “enemy” but the Catholic Prophecy tells me “very few will be saved—very few”… Why? Because they don’t ever want to be the child of Mary. So bis, God cast them out from the beginning “NO. YOU DON’T HAVE GOD AS YOUR FATHER. YOUR FATHER IS SATAN… THE FATHER OF LIES AND MURDERS FROM THE BEGINNING…”

    As I said before “If I am a true elected Pope, I will do all the might that God gives to me to expose and excommunicate all of those wolves…” (I just try to make an example by giving you a future picture of the true future Pope must do—Pray for him whosoever God chose to be His Vicar must be a Holy Saintly Pope–Otherwise, the whole world 8 billion people on this earth just ended-up in Hell).

    Benedict XVI or (Ratzinger) has never been changed. He is a hardcore HERETIC, a true Modernist, rooted in Jewish religion and inherit that satanic religion in his DNA. I don’t believe he was correctly and validly ordained into the Catholic Church either, all the Jews have been faking their conversion to Catholicism for centuries… All of them…

    But, after Fr. Gruner died, I believed there was some regret on his part. He wants to undo the damages, but it’s too late and he has no grace. GOD DOES NOT GIVE GRACE TO HIS ENEMY… PERIOD. OUR LADY SAID IT MANY TIMES. YOU CATHOLICS NEED TO TRULY REPENT AND CONVERT. DO NOT MOCK GOD.

    Now Benedict XVI knows, that the “bishop in white got killed” is him, and all of his Jewish New World Order will be burnt alive. All the Cabals/Luciferians/Freemasons will be killed, and no way for them to escape. He wanted to change and do the right thing but he is in deep DIABOLICAL DISORIENTATION.

  11. I also try to answer the questions from a different point of view: objections 1 and 2 can also be partially applied to the substantial error.

    1) (deception toward enemies)
    Plan B theory is nothing but a more complex version of invalid forced resignation.
    Benedict XVI, unable to rule due to enemies and threats (swift blockade, vatileaks, mordkomplott, etc…) had to choose between:
    -obey ecclesiastical freemasonry
    -being assassinated *
    -actually abdicate *
    (* and in these two cases leaving the see vacant and the Church in the hands of an anti-pope or a real, but pro-liberal, pope, who would do enormous damage)
    Or:
    -implement a war strategy: retreat to the impeded See, act spiritually as kathecon and let the enemies schism themselves. Benedict XVI did not strictly ‘lie,’ although it can be said that it was a kind of strategic deception (art of war).

    Even if one were to regard Plan B as ‘immoral,’ ‘unfair,’ this would not directly affect Benedict XVI’s legitimacy as pope. One could say that he is an immoral pope or that his strategy is risky or ineffective, but he would still remain the pope.

    In the substantial error theory, on the other hand, Benedict XVI can be accused of a more serious crime: attacking the papacy itself, attempting to split it into 2, wanting to create a monstrous ‘collegial papacy’ and an impossible ‘pope emeritus.’ Deforming the papacy is much more serious than deceiving enemies. It is an attack on the Church.
    Moreover, disturbing scenarios open up: if Benedict XVI always had a false conception of the papacy, did he really accept the papacy after his election? Or has he only accepted an invention of his own? So have we been in sede vacante since 2005? This is a more serious problem.

    2) (deception toward the faithful).
    In the impeded See Benedict XVI cannot express himself freely, but is censored. He is in a state of semi-prison. That is why he expresses himself in code, continuing to give messages that confirm that he is the only pope. Because he is censored, there are only rare messages against Bergoglio and many inadmissible silences. It is not complicity.
    The purpose of Plan B is to create a schism to expel apostates and separate them from the faithful, it is not to deceive the faithful.
    Moreover, the faithful can with sensus fidei, logic and the principle “ex fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos” understand that Bergoglio cannot be pope.

    Benedict XVI brought out the difference between material elements (media, exterior, cultural) and spiritual essence of the papacy. Dressing in white, going on TV, having power does not make a person pope. If someone follows Bergoglio he is either ignorant or has another religion or thinks that the pope is only a mediatic and bureaucratic figure, and the spiritual aspects are optional.

    In the substantial error theory Benedict XVI can be similarly accused of complicity with Bergoglio, and the accusation is heavier, because, not being in the impeded See, he freely chose to submit and not oppose the antipope. In fact, he betrayed the Church and the faithful.
    Can a true pope remain a pope if he voluntarily submits to an apostate antipope?

    3) He declared to renounce ministerium (not munus) in the future, but then confirmed nothing. In fact he lost material power while maintaining the essence of the papacy, remaining pope.

    4) The Ratzinger code does not consist of arcane messages, but of a text that superficially seems normal, but has strange elements that attract attention and seem nonsensical.
    With reasoning, doctrine, and sometimes knowledge of Church history, it is possible to understand the actual message. Almost all the messages refer back to the fact that Benedict XVI remains pope and is in impeded seat.

  12. Thank you Aqua and others for the thoughtful and compelling answers to the questions put forth. This is an actual good dialogue, unlike those that Bergoglio,and co., engage in. I think it’s a bit off the mark to characterize Cionci’s thesis as “four-dimensional chess” and “Gnosticism.” No, these techniques of allowing enemies to deceive themselves are necessary in war, and we are in the midst of a horrifying war, for sure. Neither are they novel in Rome. My impression is that they eat this sort of stuff for breakfast over there. Thank you for asking the questions, Mr. Docherty, and thank you for the answers.

  13. Tony Cusack,

    Actually there *is* a resignation form. It is a law of the Church – illegal and invalid to violate it. Canon 332.2

    “§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his *office*, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.”

    There are those (the vast majority of Catholics) who say the word “Office”, Latin Munus in the original Canon, is not relevant. Any similar word will do. Ministerium for instance, can be used interchangeably with Munus. Those are two fundamentally different words. The Papacy is an Office, a Divine Office, the highest Office on the planet, an Office through which God communicates directly with Man (through a man, the Pope).

    I might resign from my job – in fact I did resign from my job due to Covid. That is nothing. I did a job for which I was paid. When I was done, we mutually agreed that my employment was terminated. I did not occupy the Office of xxxx (fill in the blank). Just a job.

    That is not the case with a Pope. It is an Office higher than King or Queen. The Prince Edward VIII, Duke of Windsor submitted a resignation from his royal titles and he did so by resigning his *Office*. So did Richard Nixon – a simple one sentence “resignation of Office of President of the United States”.

    The Office is who the Pope *is*. The Ministerium is what the Pope *does*. Benedict XVI spoke of Office (Munus) throughout his resignation letter; read Canon Law 330 – 335 (which describes the character of the Roman Pontiff) and it refers *ONLY* to Office (Munus) … *NEVER* does it refer to Ministerium. Yet when Pope Benedict resigned – he used the word “Ministerium” for the one and only time in his entire letter.

    Which leads to …

    Can. 188 A resignation which is made as a result of grave fear unjustly inflicted, or of deceit, *or of substantial error*, or of simony, is invalid by virtue of the law itself.

    Invalid, by the law itself. It is not required to be ruled upon by Court of Cardinals. It is what it is.

    Pope Benedict gave the Ministry of governance to Bergoglio without the Divine connection to God of Office. And the results are clearly what we see. A false church on the ascendant. A true Church that is hidden. A false Pope who is a destructive force of nature. A true Pope who is hidden, quiet, contemplative, who represents, perhaps, the last of the line of Popes (if Malachi is to be believed).

    This is (perhaps) a time of Chastisement, as foretold by Our Lady of Fatima. She warned us “Penance, Penance, Penance … My Son is very angry …”!

    Just know that Bergoglio is not Pope, because Benedict never resigned. Remain with the True Roman Catholic Church which has never and will never change until it is raised to heaven in the Eschaton.

  14. I would like say that the Gnostics were condemned for their heresies, and not by the way people would characterize them. Being “like” a gnostic is not the same as being a gnostic. It would just be a straw man to say someone who believes they know something the public won’t acknowledge is a gnostic. Maybe he is like a gnostic, but that means nothing.

    Maybe I’m wrong here, but I don’t see anyone claim that one must have knowledge of the Ratzinger code to be saved. Just don’t follow Bergoglio’s heresies and stay faithful to what the Church used to teach.

    In fact, trying to establish the superiority of one opinion over another opinion on why Benedict still holds the papacy may just fracture BiP into sects, which people will use as a point as to why we’re just sedevacantists since we can’t even form a coherent narrative. Benedict is still pope. Why? I don’t know exactly but I have an opinion. We know Jorge is not behaving the way a pope is guaranteed to.

      1. Agreed. A secret is unnecessary to know Benedict must be pope. Even so it is right there, at least to me. The same way Bill Gates videos are suspect, and the vast majority of people think it is a crazy conspiracy theory to ascribe any nefarious intention to him.

        Either Benedict is feeble minded now or he can not directly speak the truth.

      2. But any Catholic should know it is not possible to have two visible Popes. Any Catholic intelligent enough to receive the Sacraments should be able to affirm that.

        I don’t necessarily subscribe to the “code”. I find the proposition interesting. But I don’t think the “code” is what he proposes determines how we know who is Pope. He establishes that at the beginning –

        – quote –

        “The first point to make is that Declaratio is not invalid *solely* because of the munus/ministerium inversion.”

        “For example, the postponement – totally unnecessary, if you think about it – of the entry into force of the renunciation of the ministerium. This postponement is in fact totally unacceptable for an abdication, since, theologically, it is God Himself who grants or withdraws the munus.”

        “There is also the failure to ratify the renunciation of the ministerium, which was never confirmed after 8 p.m. on Feb. 28, as said by theologian Carlo Maria Pace.”

        “Then there is the utterly fanciful use (as noted by Advocate Arthur Lambauer) of the expressions “See of St. Peter”, “See of Rome“, which have no juridical personality to be considered “vacant,” as (only) the Apostolic See can be.”

        “Not to mention that objectively strange phrase in the Declaratio “(…)and the Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is”

        – end quotes –

        He accepts the Munus/Ministerium argument as #1. Then he continues.

        Only after that is established does he move on into the “code” speculations – which will always one only be that: speculations. We *cannot* ever know until the fullness of time reveals all. The invalidity of the resignation, however, which can and must be known, quite simply, is acknowledged by Cionci in his preface and underlies everything else that follows.

      3. Aqua, very well put. The entire reason for my post, and the Four Questions, was to point out the logical ends to which those “speculations” take us. You don’t want to go there. It ends the story with Benedict being a monster.

      4. “It ends with the story with Benedict being a monster”.

        I simply don’t see the connection at all. That one (your conclusion) perplexes me.

        And either way, it either is so or it is not so … nothing I can do about it here … and those “speculations” will never determine anything that is truly important to me either way. THAT is, in fact, way above my pay grade. Determining with certainty my Pope … THAT is in my lane by Catholic right.

  15. Adding to this discussion, a reported fact that lends weight to Mark’s point of substantial error of Benedict.
    Sigrid Spath was a famous German translator in Rome. She worked in the Vatican, since the days of Paul VI and translated around 70,000 pages of documents from Italian, French, English, Spanish or Polish into German, as well as several texts by Joseph Ratzinger, as Cardinal or Pope.

    According to her own testimony, via Vatican Radio, she had approached him to covert from Lutheran to Catholic. He counseled her that “She could do more for both churches if she remained a Protestant”. This was at the time of sensitive ecumenical efforts.

    Given the above, Benedict did not consider her soul in any jeopardy remaining in Protestantism. That judgement can be sourced within the novel teachings from Vatican II’s and subsequent documents on Ecumenism. Ratzinger/Benedict should have encouraged her to become a Catholic rather than advise her to remain in Luther’s religion to benefit a larger scale effort. Souls are won on an individual basis, not via a institutional program of accommodation.

    Benedict was in substantial error on this issue and thus can also be in substantial error on other eternal and weighty issues.

    Sigrid Spath died as a follower of Luther’s teachings on February 2, 2014.

    .

    1. ciws30mm, Thanks for this reminder. I read about it a few years ago and it does seem to be true. My question; doesn’t this go beyond substantial error and maybe even into apostasy?

      1. “This is the sacred mystery of the unity of the Church, in Christ and through Christ, the Holy Spirit energizing its various functions. It is a mystery that finds its highest exemplar and source in the unity of the Persons of the Trinity: the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit, one God.”
        It is accurate to say, The Father, The Son, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, (Filioque), AND Through, With, And In Christ, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque) least it appear as if outside of Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church there is Salvation, which is not possible due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, At the end of the Day, hopefully there will be a multitude of prodigal sons and daughters, and those like The Good Thief, who, at the moment of his Death, recognized Christ in All Christ’s Glory, and Through The Baptism Of Desire, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, came late to The Fold.
        The Sacrifice Of The Cross, Is The Sacrifice Of The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity. To deny The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, is to deny The Divinity Of The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Father, Son, And Holy Ghost, and thus deny Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy.
        “Penance, Penance, Penance”.
        https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/decree-on-ecumenism-1518

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.